Even though the military challenges might make it unfeasible, we should acknowledge the moral and historical cases for intervening.

A Syrian boy in Homs stands in front of a burned out armored vehicle belonging to the army / Reuters

I was an early supporter of military intervention in Libya.
I called
for a no-fly zone on February 23, just 8 days after protests began. Now, we're
nearly 300 days into the Syrian uprising. Very few analysts, myself included,
have publicly called for foreign intervention, even though the Syrian regime
has proven both more unyielding and more brutal than Muammar Qaddafi's.

Steven Cook, in a recent and controversial piece,
made the case for the military option in Syria. I agree with much of Cook's
article but not all of it. Emotionally, and from a purely moral perspective, I
agree with all of it. The risks of intervention, however, are tremendous. Marc
Lynch has made
the most persuasive case for caution. So I find myself torn.

It may make sense, then, to revisit the reasons I, and
several others including Lynch, broke ranks
with our colleagues on the left and supported the NATO operation in Libya.
First, American policymakers should -- as a matter of principle -- take Arab
public opinion seriously. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, there were no
widespread calls among Iraqis themselves for us, or anyone else, to intervene
militarily. In Libya, there were. The Libyan rebels were practically begging
us to step in with military force.

In recent months, a rapidly growing number of Syrian
activists, both on the ground and those in exile, have called forcefully and
repeatedly for some form of foreign intervention, whether through the
establishment of no-fly zones, no-drive zones, humanitarian corridors, "safe
zones," or through the arming of rebel forces such as the Free Syrian
Army.

The Syrian National Council, the most important Syrian
opposition body and the closest analogue to Libya's National Transitional
Council, has unequivocally called
for foreign intervention. Its leaders have repeatedly issued such calls
to the international community in similarly clear language. The same goes for
Syrian activists on the ground. Each week, they agree on a theme for the Friday
protests that take place across the country. On Friday, October 28, the
protests were dubbed,
again rather unambiguously, "no-fly zone Friday." We can't -- and shouldn't --
endorse something just because a country's opposition wants us to, but we do
need to take their calls seriously, particularly because they happen to be
directed to us.

As I argued
in a recent article in The New Republic,
Arab protesters and revolutionaries, despite their often passionate dislike of
U.S. policy, continue to turn to us for support in their time of need. This
should not be taken lightly. In a time when millions of Arabs are demanding and
dying for their freedom, the United States finds itself in a privileged role.
Because of who we are, what we claim to aspire to -- and, of course, our
unparalleled military capability -- we often, for both better and worse, have
the power to tip the balance one way or the other.

The clichéd refrain that the Arab uprisings are about "them"
and not "us" seems to treat Western powers as innocent bystanders, which they
aren't and haven't been for five decades. International factors have been
critical in the majority of countries facing unrest, including Syria, Yemen,
Bahrain, Libya, and, to a lesser extent, Egypt. In short, U.S. support for
democracy matters and will continue to matter for the foreseeable future. In
some countries, it will matter a great deal.

Some critics of the Libya intervention feared it would set a
precedent. I hoped it would set a precedent -- that whenever pro-democracy
protesters were threatened with massacre, the U.S., Europe, and its allies
would take the responsibility to protect seriously, and consider military
intervention as a legitimate option -- provided that those on the ground asked
us to do so.

Unfortunately, one successful case of military intervention --
in Libya -- is not enough to establish a precedent. For too long, the Syrian
regime has assumed, correctly it turns out, that Libya was the exception that
proved the rule. Obama administration officials have said as much, insisting
that the military option is not being
seriously considered for Syria.

To be sure, one should always look at Western intervention
in Arab lands with some degree of skepticism. The United States has a tragic
history in the region, supporting repressive dictatorships for over 50 years
with rather remarkable consistency. But where there is sin there is also
atonement. What made Libya a "pure" intervention was that we acted not because
our vital interests were threatened but in spite of the fact that they were
not. For me, this was yet one more reason to laud it. Libya provided us an
opportunity to begin the difficult work of re-orienting U.S. foreign policy, to
align ourselves, finally, with our own ideals.

For me, Syria is part of this bigger debate; what role does
the United States seek for itself in a rapidly changing world, a world in which
activists and rebels still long for an America that will recognize the struggle
and come to the aid of their revolutions? The rising democracies of Brazil and
India cannot offer this. Russia and China certainly cannot.

MORE ON SYRIA

Hastening Bashar al-Assad's fall, aside from being the right
thing to do, would also be squarely in our self-interest. The
Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis would be destroyed. Iran would find itself
significantly weakened without its traditional entry point into the Arab world.
Hezbollah, dependent on both Iranian and Syrian military and financial support,
would also suffer. A democratic Syria, meanwhile, would likely be more in line
with U.S. interests. In a free election, a reconstituted Syrian Muslim
Brotherhood would stand a good chance of winning a plurality of seats. As I've written
previously, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has had the distinction of being
one of the region's fiercest opponents of Iranian hegemony.

In short, whether based on ideals or interests, the case for
intervention is strong. I am not, however, a military specialist. I cannot say
whether military intervention would work. Considering all the variables at
play, it could turn into a terrible mess, perhaps more terrible than it already
is.

Indeed, there are a number of reasons why intervention,
today, would be premature (Michael Weiss runs through some of them in his excellent
article in Foreign Affairs). But
it may not be premature in a month or in two. The international community must
begin considering a variety of military options -- the establishment of "safe
zones" seems the most plausible -- and determine which enjoys the highest
likelihood of causing more good than harm. This is now -- after nearly a year
of waiting and hoping -- the right thing to do. It is also the responsible
thing to do.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.